gsc_top_pages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only reporting operation and communicates the output dimensions and sorting, but it does not disclose date-range behavior, site selection, pagination, or sampling considerations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded phrase with no filler: it states the sort logic and the included metrics in one line. It is concise and readable, though it is too terse to serve as a complete call guide.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The presence of an output schema covers the return shape, and all parameters are optional with defaults, so a default call is plausible. However, the description omits when to prefer this tool over its many GSC siblings and does not explain the meaning or interaction of date and site parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters, but it does not mention days, limit, start_date, end_date, or site_url. The schema titles and defaults provide some inference, but date formats and the role of site_url remain unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource ('landing pages') and the ordering metric ('by clicks'), and lists the returned metrics (impressions, CTR, average position). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like gsc_top_queries, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus gsc_top_queries, gsc_search_analytics, gsc_queries_for_page, or gsc_compare_periods. The description only implies a page-level report and provides no exclusions or alternative routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.